A federal judge on Monday declined to temporarily block a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy requiring members of Congress to give seven days’ notice before visiting immigration detention facilities.
U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb in Washington, D.C., ruled that DHS did not violate a prior court order when it reinstated the notice requirement on Jan. 8. Cobb said she was not assessing the legality of the new policy but found that plaintiffs had used the wrong procedural method to challenge it.
The legal challenge was brought by attorneys from Democracy Forward on behalf of several Democratic members of Congress. It followed denied access to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility near Minneapolis earlier this month, three days after an ICE officer fatally shot U.S. citizen Renee Good in the city.
Cobb ruled in December that a previous policy requiring advance notice for congressional visits was likely unlawful. However, she said the policy reinstated last month is “similar but different,” making it a distinct agency action not covered by her earlier injunction.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem signed the new memo mandating the notice requirement the day after Good’s death. Plaintiffs said the policy was not disclosed until after Reps. Ilhan Omar, Kelly Morrison, and Angie Craig were turned away from the Minneapolis facility.
Twelve other Democratic lawmakers have also sued over ICE’s visit restrictions, alleging the current administration is obstructing congressional oversight during an increase in immigration enforcement.
Federal law limits DHS from using general appropriations to block congressional access to its facilities. Plaintiffs argued DHS has not shown that fully separate funding is being used to implement the policy.
Justice Department attorney Amber Richer told the court the Jan. 8 guidance represents a new policy, distinct from the version blocked in December.
Cobb emphasized that her decision was based solely on procedural grounds. “The Court emphasizes that it denies Plaintiffs’ motion only because it is not the proper avenue to challenge Defendants’ January 8, 2026 memorandum and the policy stated therein, rather than based on any kind of finding that the policy is lawful,” she wrote.
Democracy Forward spokeswoman Melissa Schwartz said the group is reviewing the ruling. “We will continue to use every legal tool available to stop the administration’s efforts to hide from congressional oversight,” she said in a statement.
Plaintiffs argued that urgent oversight is needed as lawmakers work to finalize DHS and ICE funding before annual appropriations expire Jan. 30. They stated that unannounced visits are critical for assessing ICE facility conditions in real time.
Although government attorneys said concerns about facility changes over a week are speculative, Cobb rejected that argument in her December ruling. “The changing conditions within ICE facilities means that it is likely impossible for a Member of Congress to reconstruct the conditions at a facility on the day that they initially sought to enter,” she wrote.
